[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They all have questionable histories, let's be frank here. I know it's not "our country" - but you seem VERY prepared to overlook Donald Trump's questionable history both personal and political when it suits? You seem very prepared to overlook Theresa May selling billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi that will most likely end up in the hands of terrorists? I'm not saying Corbyn's past is squeaky clean - show me anyone over the age of 40 who DOES have a squeaky clean past and I'll start drawing up the contracts for chocolate teapots - I'm saying he realistically isn't an "ISIS supporter" or a realistic security threat. It's smear-nonsense.




If he "was considered a security threat" he wouldn't be in his position. It's as simple as that. Unless you believe the authorities to be incompetent to sitcom-levels.

I'm sorry, but thats not true. Its a democracy, so people have the right to stand provided they satisfy the rules, but that doesn't mean he will have access once elected to issues related to security if he does not have the clearance for a particular level.

There is precedence in the past, this also happened previously with labour cabinet ministers.